#BLUEHARVEST COMPANY TRIAL#
The trial court subsequently denied DOT's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (governmental immunity) on the trespass-nuisance claim and instead found that plaintiffs were entitled to summary disposition on this claim under MCR 2.116(C)(10). 116(C)(10) to DOT and Ottawa County on the inverse-condemnation claims, finding that plaintiffs failed to present evidence to establish that their injury was “of a unique or peculiar character different from the effects experienced by all similarly situated property owners.” The trial court concluded that plaintiffs were not permanently deprived of their property and that “the incidental entry of road salt onto Plaintiffs' properties has only rendered the growing of blueberries uneconomical.” The trial court further found that there was no “direct and immediate intrusion” onto plaintiff's property in this case. The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2. Plaintiffs also raised a claim of trespass nuisance against DOT. Plaintiffs sued DOT and Ottawa County, alleging inverse condemnation. They contend that this salt spray causes damage to plaintiffs' blueberry bushes, which results in a loss of blueberry production from those bushes. They allege that droplets of salt-laden water are thrown into the air by passing vehicles and are then blown by the wind onto plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs claim that the amount of salt used in western Michigan has increased during a 15-year period. DOT contracts with county road commissions, including defendant Ottawa County Road Commission (Ottawa County), to maintain the highways and county roads during the winter, when salt is used to prevent the formation of ice on the highways and roads. Plaintiffs own or lease property that is adjacent to highways or primary county roads. Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial production of blueberries in Ottawa and Muskegon counties. Of particular note is our holding that there is no trespass-nuisance exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
![blueharvest company blueharvest company](https://www.scmgroup.com/landing/industry-4-0/uk/img_uk_blue_1.jpg)
We reverse the trial court's order relating to the trespass-nuisance claim but affirm in all other respects.
![blueharvest company blueharvest company](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BZuDAfNjxUI/UnWaoh5NQaI/AAAAAAAARIA/pDmR5IDYRwg/s640/blue%2Bharvest%2Blogo.jpg)
Plaintiffs cross-appeal to challenge the grant of summary disposition to both defendants on plaintiffs' inverse-condemnation claim. Decided: April 29, 2010īefore: METER, P.J., and MURRAY and BECKERING, JJ.ĭefendant Department of Transportation (DOT) appeals as of right from an order denying its motion for summary disposition on grounds of governmental immunity regarding plaintiffs' trespass-nuisance claim. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Ottawa County Road Commission, Defendant-Cross-Appellee. C., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. BLUE HARVEST, INC., Blueberry Heritage Farms, Inc., Brady Farms, Inc., David Reenders Blueberries, L.L.C., d/b/a Crossroads Blueberry Farm, Paul Nelson Blueberries, L.L.C., and Reenders Blueberries, L.L.